Yes, this is part of the viral marketing campaign for the game Shadow of the Colossus. The images on the site are the same images used on other sites
about the underwater giant.

EDIT: And yeah, on this and other sites, they claim that it they had done tests on a portion of the thing and the tests showed that the sample
contained bone, so they were attempting to say that these are the remains of a giant, rather than a statue.

Originally posted by groingrinder
He claims to have found a GIANT STATUE, not the remains of a giant being.

if you read the update you will see that the lab analysis says it is organic and not stone (dna detected) - they suggest it may be a species of
unknown giant eel but are going to run further tests so will be interesting to keep an eye on at least from the cryptozoological point of view

Actually there is (was) a thread on this already. Sunken Giant ... Sadly this came
up with the other Giants cases and was written of with the rest as part of the Sony marketing scheme.

Personally I don't think it has anything to do with Sony or their game. Compare the other two videos vs. this site. The quality is not
comparable. And the Sulu Sea giant doesn't compare to any giants in the game.

I do believe that the guy says that he is who he is, but if he's telling the truth remains open for discussion. He did not reply to any of the emails
sent to him. And no-one from any archeology department seems interested either.

Who knows, maybe sharks did eat him. Not funny, I know, but he started it.

Yossarian, just look at a couple of threads on the first page of the Cryptozoology forum. Any thread that has "Sony" or "Giant" in the title is
most probably about Sony's viral marketing scheme for their game Shadow of the Colossus.

So in other words he pulled it off of his camera in whatever format he had it in, converted it to a webfriendly format, OR whoever took the origional
image from his site converted it for easy emailing and the like.

Because a photo has been run through photoshop DOES NOT mean that its a fake. Conversely just because a image doesn't have the photoshop marker on it
doesn't mean its real either.

Do you not think that someone who knows how photoshop works, also does not know how to remove the mark? You think if someone was going to bother
faking a photo of something that they would do that.. remove the photoshop mark that screams that the picture has been doctored?

I'm not specifically talking about THIS CASE, but I'm getting kind of tired of these armchair "investigators" writing things off just because of
one piece of data that they can't inturpret properly from a piece of software that they don't know how to use all that well.

No offence dude.. but personally your analisys doesn't mean anything to me and I don't think it should mean anything to you either.

What would happen if I took a real high quality shot of bigfoot that was too large to store HERE on ATS so I'd HAVE to photoshop the thing to fit my
disk quota properly at first... does that mean you are all just going to write it off because I had to reformat my shot?

Can't somebody, please, tell me how to get in touch with sony and give us their final word. Even though in the other thread there are various
articles telling them that its fake, ww.giantology.net comments on it and everyone who contributed to that thread said it was, its still fooled
people.

Come on IGNORANCE DENIERS face facts.
1) All four giants were 'discovered' at around similar times
2) All four pieces of evidence ('news footage', arkady's vid, plus the pic of the desert and water ones) all have a perfectly captured longshot.
3) Arkady Simkin, founder of the giant Taurus Major, went onto a radio show and told the world it was a viral scheme.
4) In the above perfect shots the giants are so CG its obvious.
5) Last but not least, they all are in the game

Originally posted by Vis Mega
What would happen if I took a real high quality shot of bigfoot that was too large to store HERE on ATS so I'd HAVE to photoshop the thing to fit my
disk quota properly at first... does that mean you are all just going to write it off because I had to reformat my shot?

Well first, no offence taken...I don't get pissed about other peoples opinions.
Second, I would deal with your bigfoot situation exactly the same way I did with this one. I emailed the guy and asked him to send me an un-edited
original version of the picture. If it's real then you would have a copy of the original, right? Photoshop doesn't mean fake but it does mean more
likely fake IMO. What I said was "end of story FOR ME" I didn't say "Hey guys, I'm 100% sure that this guy is a hoaxer!!!" and "You should all
not give it any credit!" I just stated my opinion on the matter.
Also, I am pretty darn good with PS and Gimp and I can easily spot a fake with or without the imbedded adobe or ducky marks. I use PS, Gimp and
MSPaint about four times a week for the passed couple of years. I know what I am doing. Not saying I'm the best but I am better than your average
user.

Those pictures on the website are so vague, I can't really comment on them.

When I saw the pic of the head, the first thing that came to mind was Cthulhu Mythos. Not too sure why. I e-mailed this guy personally, and
hopefully he'll reply. If he does I'll make sure to post what he said.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.